Brother Modernist (JReducation) from CAF delivers yet another deluded/ detached from reality synopsis of Rome/ SSPX relations and the crisis...

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=641361

If I may make several observations without throwing stones at the SSPX or His Excellency.

I've read all of these posts and no one here has mentioned a key player in all of this. Every time that the SSPX comes up he is left out of the loop, but he is the man holding the key. Allow me to be ambiguous for a minute. When Bl. John Paul was pope, who took care of the daily problems while Pope John Paul dealt with the big picture?

If you said, Cardinal Ratzinger, you get a prize. It is no secret that this whole dialogue was placed in the hands of three theologians: a Jesuit, a Dominican and a Holy Cross (Opus Dei) under the direction of the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Faith, Cardinal Levada. Why are you people ignoring this man?

He is the one who gave the SSPX the Preamble. I bring up the Cardinal, because if the SSPX bishops get too mouthy, the Cardinal has the authority to slam and dunk them. The pope will back him up. He will report to the Pope his impressions and make his suggestions and they will carry a lot of weight.

This leads me to the second point about this sermon. His Excellency spends too much time criticizing the Holy See. At one point he actually says, "You're Modernists". Having had a father who was a career diplomat, I learned a few things. One of them was that you never get into name calling when you're negotiating. Name calling can be the death knoll of a negotiation. My father always said that if you start name calling, you're no longer trying to negotiate, you're attacking. I'm not inside His Excellency's head. I don't know if this crossed his mind when he used this unfortunate wording.

My other point is related. When you take name calling out to the crowds, as the bishop has done, it amounts to swarming. Some of you have pointed the finger at priests, bishops and religious who are disobedient and even heretical. The truth is that this has happened. There is a difference here. They have not gotten into a confrontation with the Holy See itself. The Holy See can step back and allow the lower levels of authority to deal with the problem. When you get in the Holy See's face and you call it "Modernist" and you say "No [I will not obey]" you've raised the bar. You've gone beyond heterodoxy, beyond disobedience, beyond whatever other rules other people have broken. You have elevated yourself to a position of "equals". Equals get in each other's face, though it's not a pretty picture. When a subordinate acts and talks as if he's a peer, it's insubordination.

As much as many of us would like to know the answers to some questions that the SSPX is asking, see the Holy See make some changes here and there, most of us who are clergy and religious, would never have the audacity to speak to the Holy See as if we were equals calling it names and stating flatly that we will not obey, even if we're angry as heck.

Some people may admire that as honesty. I fear that it's defiance. Don't get me wrong. Other people are defiant too; but they do their defying under the radar, like teenagers. When they get caught, there are consequences, but they may not be as harsh, because they did not push authority.

An observation in defense of the Holy See, especially Cardinal Levada and his staff, the SSPX has told us what it considers to be wrong with Rome. Some of it is clear, reasonable, unreasonable and some makes no sense. Regardless, they minced no words in chewing up Rome and spitting it out.

Meanwhile, Rome has acted like a lady. She has not said a single negative word about the SSPX. I don't believe that it's because the SSPX is so perfect, behaved so well during these discussion and impressed the Holy See so much that it left the Holy See in awe. If that were the case, the Holy See would have given the SSPX a welcome home party last September and not a Preamble.

Obviously, the Holy See has its own opinions about the SSPX, but it has not taken them to the public. In fairness, it behooves us to acknowledge the politeness and discretion of the Holy See in this matter. Maybe we should express some gratitude for its dignified behavior. The Vatican has been much more gracious than the SSPX.

I would have been very simple for the Bishop to state that unfortunately they had be unable to reach an agreement. He could have told the people that things are at a standstill or that he's awaiting a response to his response. He could have even enumerated the points that they still want clarified. That would have been acceptable and informative.

He could have done that with the utmost dignity, appropriate for a bishop, without the attitude. What I found that appalling from a bishop at a pulpit. Even Father Kung, was the epitome of a gentleman when he met with the pope. His comments after the meeting were brief. He did speak on the disagreements, but did not express himself with an attitude as if he were the pope's equal.

I'll close by recalling the fist time that I met Cardinal Ratzinger. I had heard that this man was the "pope's Rottweiler" I was shaking in my boots as I walked into his office. I left in a state of shock. The man was everything that was courteous and humble. I was the subordinate. He did not have to be so polite and charming to me. Had he been distant or aloof, I would have accepted it. I look at the marked difference in the behaviors and it frightens me. At the end of the day, the attitude can make or break any negotiation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Here he explains why playing nicey is more important than theological truth and how JPII has created the "greatest generation" of the Church. Amazing how the Vatican will "not tolerate the rhetoric and attitude" of the Society, but tolerates much harsher rhetoric and attitude from the left daily. Of course, BroMo doesn't mention this. Only the Society is disobedient, because they are "mean." The dissenting liberals are harmless and lovable...

PART II

On a related subject . . . I'm gong to go on a limb here and say that I predict that the Vatican will read the response to the Preamble and will certainly listen to this speech very carefully, as well as review some letters that SSPX priests have sent to local bishops, letters that were very rude, even when they made some valid points. It was like the kid who tells his parents that they are wrong for not taking him to mass, but uses the profanity in arguing his case.   These letters have been forward to Cardinal Levada.

I believe that after reading all of this,, the Vatican will NOT send the SSPX away. At the end of the day, priests and religious we must be compassionate and we must have a fervent desire to save souls. The priests and bishops of the SSPX deserve our compassion and they certainly have as much right as anyone else to count on our effort for their salvation.

However, I believe that the Vatican will NOT tolerate the attitude and the rhetoric. Some consequences will follow. I just can't imagine what they may be.

I also believe that, that this sermon may have hurt the SSPX. There are many SSPX priests who were looking forward to a reconciliation. There is a possibility that they will get tired and simply leave the SSPX to join one of the Ecclesia Dei institutes. These are human beings and many are young men. After a while, you do say to yourself, "This is getting old."

I do NOT believe that the dying generation of Vatican II bishops will bring any benefit to the SSPX. The only benefit is a generation of more conservative and orthodox theologians.

However, this is the John Paul II generation. This generation was brought into the priesthood and into religious life through the pastoral outreach of this holy pope. We responded to him and looked at him as a father, not as villain. The SSPX sometimes paints him in a very bad light, not a good idea with this generation. We don't tolerate someone throwing our father's dirt in our faces and adding some, which is what tends to happen with radical liberalism and radical traditionalism.

Bl. John Paul was very wise and knew how to cultivate this generation. As he grew older, once he had its trust and love, he gently guided it to place that trust and give that love to the man in the Chair of Peter, not just him.

This generation that is rising to replace the "Vatican II" generation has the most positive regard for the genius of Pope Benedict XVI. It also has a much stronger attachment to the papacy than the Vatican II generation. The papacy has become an essential part of this generation's identity as either priests or religious or both (in the case of regular priests). It's spirituality and its ministry is shaped by the spirituality and example of Popes John Paul and Benedict. I know what I'm talking about, because this is my generation.

Many of us were children during Vatican II and others were born after. By the time we took notice of Vatican II, it had lost some of it's glamour. But we learned to look at Vatican II through the eyes of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Why? Because these men earned our respect and our love. They reached out to us when we were young.

The generation that is taking charge today is composed of men who do not take kindly to their pope being given ultimatums, called names or spoken about as if one were speaking about a commoner. We have grown up with a very strong sense of fidelity to the papacy, because it strengthens our identity as Catholics and as priests, brothers, sisters, deacons and theologians.

I fear that the generation that Bishop Fellay hopes will be more sympathetic may be more antagonistic, unless the SSPX starts to speak nicely to popes and bishops. This is a much more defensive generation. It defends the Catholic faith and it defends Catholic authority, be it the pope, the bishop or the religious superior. I believe that a defensive dog is more likely to bite than a barking one.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Here he explains why Summorum Pontificuм doesn't really mean squat and Bishops do not disobey by refusing to implement it.

These docuмents did not carry the weight of law. They were meant to clarify a false assumption, that being that the Tridentine form had been abrogated. They fraternally ask the bishops to make possible a wider availability of the EF of the mass. There was a deliberate reason why the Holy See did not write these docuмents as law.

First: You can't order a bishop to provide the Extraordinary Form of the mass if his diocesan priests don't want to celebrate it. Law can never order the unreasonable.

Second: Only secular priests that belong to dioceses can celebrate the Extraordinary Form without asking for permission. If you are a religious or a secular priest who belongs to a society of apostolic life, the docuмents are clear that you must look to the major superior and the laws that govern your community to see if you can celebrate the Tridentine Form in public or not. The permission was given for priests of religious orders to celebrate the Tridentine Form in private. However, there is a catch here. If you belong to a religious order, the superior of the house decides if and when you can celebrate mass. In essence all that the pope did was to say to priests who are religious, "when you have permission to celebrate mass in private, you may use the Tridentine Form; but you may never use the Tridentine form in public unless your superior grants permission. Superiors cannot grant that permission, if the Tridentine form is not allowed by the laws that govern the religious community or the society of apostolic life. Only the chapter can give the superior the authority to allow or prohibit what's not already in Canon Law or in the constitutions.

As you can see, when you have so many exceptions, you cannot impose on the bishops such a command. You have to word it as a request. Bishops cannot force diocesan priests to celebrate the Tridentine mass and they certainly cannot dictate to religious superiors. Male religious superiors are of equal rank to a bishop. They are Ordinaries.

This allows the bishops room to decline, drag their feet, think about it and for some of them, finding a priest who meets the requirements is a real problem. I know one bishop who found a priest who knows Latin fluently. He asked him. The priest asked his superior and the superior said, "Only on special occasions." I know another diocese that had no one step up to the plate and volunteer to celebrate it.

An order can only command that which is doable. These docuмents cannot make this a law, because it would be setting the bishops up for non-compliance. When people say that the bishops are disobeying the pope because they are not providing the EF, they are mistaken. The pope never ordered them to do so. He requested it. It is not disobedience. It's not something that I would do, but it's not disobedience. If the pope requested something from me, I'd try my best to make it happen and if I can't make it happen, I would let him know that I tried. We have to be very careful to know what we're talking about when we use canonical language. Disobedience is a very strong canonical term.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon Bloy  
Can I say, respectfully, that I sigh a very long sigh internally at just seeing this thread every time I come onto the forums? I am so weary of all these arguments about and with the SSPX.

How about: "Holy Father, tell us what we should do, and we will immediately do it out of holy obedience?" It would be a very short and simple conversation.

May God have mercy on us all.
The Holy Father cannot do that, because it is not his place to micromanage the Church. That's the reason that we have a Holy See. Below the Holy See, we have departments, committees, and below them we have dioceses and religious orders. The pyramid exists for a reason. It has existed since the time of the Apostles. It's just bigger today, because the Church is spread farther.

Aside from the size of the Church, which does not allow the pope to micromanage it, there is a matter of priorities. Each papacy has its own priorities. For this papacy the priorities are the conversion of Europe, continuing dialogue with Muslims and Jєωs, theological development, and the abuse problem.

The pope is only one man. He already has his agenda set. When these things come up, they have to be handed over to the proper authorities to handle. It is frustrating to have to wait and see, but there is no way that we can expect the pope to deal with so many things.

He is still a priest. He has to stop to fulfill his priestly obligations, at least to pray his breviary. Generally, unless he's traveling, his workday is about 6 hours. The rest of his time is spent attending to his priestly duties and to his research and writing.

We can't ask him to micromanage. It's not his place to do that. In order to do so, he would have to clone himself and burn himself out.

We have to be patient.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Agreed. It is mind-boggling how he is allowed to constantly pontificate about the mind of the Church, BXVI, Canon Law, Church History, obedience, etc. with absolute reckless abandon. When he is challenged or asked to back up his assertions, the poster who does this is typically silenced immediately and BroMo acts outraged at the uncharity. It really would be comical if not so sad.

He said once he has cancer of some sort so his order allows him to do "internet apostolate" which apparently equates to spending vast hours typing on CAF everyday disparaging Traditionalists and espousing his own particular views of the Church as the Church's views. Would it be better if he did a prayer apostolate? Adoration apostolate?

I've never heard of a religious brother being called to type on the web all day. Have you?

Sometimes you wonder how much these people are being paid in order to keep the "New Springtime" mentality/machine going. Sadly, many NO Catholics and the like buy it. The mindless detached from reality harping about the "VII generation," "JPII generation," etc, as if somehow generations before never really got it, until now. That combined with the papalotry is typical of JReducation and their ilk.

He said once he has cancer of some sort so his order allows him to do "internet apostolate" which apparently equates to spending vast hours typing on CAF everyday disparaging Traditionalists and espousing his own particular views of the Church as the Church's views.

That's a strange cancer; what's it called? Ego Cancer? Modernistitis?

Meddlesome subverters have to be called what they are.  In any context.

The scrupulous and disingenuous who speak incessantly about withholding judgment are their enablers.  

Wow, too bad I can't thumb down that guy's post. Typical Novus Ordo hogwash.